Capital seems too focus on production, which was fine for the 20th century but feels outdated by now. Capitalism is really, really good at adaptation and now the economy is mostly based on services. Is there any Marxist analysis on service based economy?

Commodity production is at its highest point in human-history, capitalists in the imperial core have just chosen to shift most production to the third-world where they can exploit without labor laws and minimum wages. In the void we porky’s labor aristocracy consumer class

Marx’s definition of productive labor is very broad too, so there’s a lot that goes on in the American economy that might not be classified under manufacturing that actually is productive. For instance, fast food isn’t counted as manufacturing or even as industry but it still is a productive job.

The US manufacturing economy in particular is actually very large being capitalized around $4 trillion. I once did some calculations using BLS statistics trying to find out how many people worked in productive industry in a total but conventionally limited sense. I believe I came up with about 20% or so or the workforce involved in it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it edged up to 25%-30% once you include those service jobs that are misclassified such as fry cooks.

Yeah, for sure, but the strange thing is bourgeois economists classify it as a service instead of commodity production. I mean even Smith would have classified burger flipping as productive labor.

A lot of Marxists don’t go any deeper than the surface presentation of bourgeois statistics tho. So if they say only 12% of the workforce works in manufacturing they’ll usually parrot that as proof that Marx’s theories need to be fundamentally updated to meet today’s conditions. They typically won’t even bother to add other productive industrial sectors to the equation like building, mining, agriculture etc. despite the material being readily available. They just think productive work=factory for some reason.

I have so far yet to see a single bourgeois critique of Capital that doesn't rely on outright misunderstanding, and believe me I've looked. It's so flagrant that the only real explanation is that most bourgois economists are either liars, retarded, or both (usually both). The closest critique I have ever found that doesn't rely on outright misunderstanding or misrepresentation is the Sraffian transformation problem, and that one is still retarded when you realise that the main hypothesis in marxian price theory attempts to establish that there is a proportionality between mean embodied labour of a commodity and the mean of the market price over time. As such it is an empirical hypothesis which must be debunked by the data, which bourgeois economists shy away from because they are wrong and don't like to be proven wrong.

Also Sraffa is stupid, because his formulation on competitive price doesn't take into account MOP, making it non-marxian, which means his formulation actually has nothing to do with Marx's price theory. The very thing his formulation was supposed to challenge. Pic related, Sraffa's formulation of competitive price. l is labour, w is wages, r is rate of profit. Notice that lack of MOP taken into account

LTV, falling rate of profit, the "transformation problem" have all been proven numerous times or found to not be a "problem". And they have been tackled from different angles (Cock, Kliman, Kržan, Bajt and many others)